[GA - Passed] Whistleblowing Convention

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chipoli

Chipoli

Security Council
-
-
-
Pronouns
he/him
TNP Nation
Chipoli
Discord
chipoli
ga.jpg

Whisteblowing Convention
Category: Civil Rights | Area of Effect: Significant
Proposed by: The Ice States | Onsite Topic​

Whereas whistleblowing should be protected, be it enacted as follows.

  1. Definitions: The following is:
    1. "State" means member nation, or administrative or political subdivision thereof.

    2. "Entity" means public or private entity.

    3. An "authorised recipient" is a body receiving a Section 2 report under Sections 2, 5 or 7.

    4. "Consent" means positive, free, informed and written consent.

    5. No part of this resolution restricts the ability of member nations to jointly or severally create further protections for disclosure of unlawful, wrongful or otherwise illicit activity by an entity.
  2. Agencies: A person (hereinafter "whistleblower") has the right to submit a bona fide report (hereinafter "report") not violating legal professional privilege of unlawful, wrongful or otherwise illicit activity by an entity to a body (hereinafter "agency") with authority over, and which is otherwise independent of, said entity. Every entity must have at least one agency in addition to any established at a higher state level. An agency has the following duties:
    1. Never (i) disclosing to any external person or group of persons the identity of any whistleblower submitting a report to that agency, subject to Section 3; or (ii) discriminating against a whistleblower based on any social categorisation protected by World Assembly or other applicable law as arbitrary or reductive;

    2. Promptly and fully forwarding any report which that agency lacks the authority to adequately address to another agency with such authority; the forwarding agency shall subsequently disclaim all authority under Sections 2c - 2e over the report;

    3. Promptly reviewing every other report the agency receives, and deciding whether to officially act against the reported activity, either immediately or after an official investigation by that agency, based on factors including the severity and likelihood of the reported activity;

    4. Reserving authority to (i) order the cessation of reported activity upon deciding to act against it; (ii) prosecute, or where the agency oversees a private entity only request the prosecution of, unlawful reported activity or failure to comply with a Section 2d.i order; and (iii) act as a mediator to address reports, conditional on the consent of all involved parties including the original whistleblower; and

    5. Authorising the publication of activity or evidence thereof reported under Section 2a, where (i) the information to be disclosed is demonstrably correct; (ii) the public has an interest in knowledge of such information which outweighs any compelling public interest against such disclosure, eg personal privacy or national security; and (iii) such disclosure does not violate the law of any jurisdiction the agency does not oversee.
  3. Liability: Every agency shall be subject to a standard of respondeat superior; in addition to the official in question, an agency is criminally liable for violations of this resolution by an official of said agency. Section 2a's anonymity requirements may be waived only
    1. with the consent of the relevant whistleblower;

    2. for Section 2b forwarding of a report, in which case the entity to which the report is forwarded must comply with the same anonymity requirements; or

    3. to the minimal extent deemed essential by a tribunal or agency to facilitate an official investigation of (i) a likely violation of criminal or civil law or (ii) the reported activity.
  4. Non-retaliation: No penalty, discriminatory treatment or other retaliation may be imposed upon any person for lodging a report, or upon any person or entity for publishing or circulating facts whose publication was authorised by an agency under Section 2e.

  5. Direct reports: A report may be directly lodged with the entity responsible for the reported activity, in which case the entity must (a) comply with this resolution's anonymity requirements as if it were an agency and (b) forward the report to an actual agency under the procedure in Section 2b.

  6. Advice: A prospective whistleblower has the right to request advice on how or whether to lodge a report from up to three individuals with the general expectation of confidentiality. A person who invokes this right shall be subject to the non-retaliation protections in Section 4, as if that person were lodging a report.

  7. GDAA: The General Disclosure Appellate Agency (hereinafter the GDAA) is established as an agency with universal jurisdiction and prosecutorial powers. A whistleblower may directly submit a report to the GDAA should that whistleblower believe that a lower-level agency failed or is unlikely to appropriately address the report or reported activity. The GDAA shall directly process all reports lodged with it.

  8. Contradiction: Should a provision of this resolution contradict a past World Assembly resolution still in force, that previous resolution takes precedence.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations, NPA personnel, and those on NPA deployments will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote. If you are on an NPA deployment without being formally registered as an NPA member, name your deployed nation in your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
14500
 
Last edited by a moderator:
```Overview
This proposal seeks to promote the welfare and well-being of the general public and society by facilitating the disclosure and prompt inquiry into significant misconduct within a government or non-government "entity", while safeguarding those who come forward in accordance with the provisions of the proposal.

Recommendation
We could not quite understand exactly why "three" was chosen as the magic number under clause 6, i.e. why not four? Why not five? Ensuring the right threshold exists for addressing complaints is also another concern - litigious and costly vexatious complaints almost always surround these types of legislative regimes.

With that being said, ensuring that the World Assembly and its committees and working groups have procedures in place to guarantee those aware of issues surrounding corruption and other questionable activities have the opportunities to make disclosures - and be protected in that way, with no repercussions - is an important safeguard mechanism of any functioning democracy.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the General Assembly proposal at vote, "Whistleblowing Convention".```
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That preamble is too short. There is no indication of the benefit that comes from whistleblowing beging protected. Nor of why the steps taken in the active clauses are necessary to achieve the preambulatory aim. With that said, the active clauses are comprehensive, handling the topic in good detail and with an even hand. The writing is strong, unambiguous, and well written. I also appreciate that there is a degree of appreciation for compliance in good faith. A lot of clauses, such as the third, find themselves enforceable without being burdensomely stringent.

Therefore, on balance, I am in favour of this proposal.
 
Kenmoria:
That preamble is too short. There is no indication of the benefit that comes from whistleblowing beging protected. Nor of why the steps taken in the active clauses are necessary to achieve the preambulatory aim.
Click to expand...
The reason for this is that the proposal is at exactly 5000 characters and it would break the character limit to include a longer preamble :P.

Edit: Regrettably, it appears it is only at 4996 characters...however the point still applies.
 
Last edited:
Against. I commented and edited this fairly extensively (by my own standards at least) and I don't have anything further to add. My own comments are mostly gameside.

My main problem with this resolution is that if the whistleblower turns out to be wrong, and the agency also turns out to be wrong, there is no plausible way to seek compensation for the wrongful acts and for emotional distress. One issue I objected ferociously (over the use of the word "improper" was addressed) but this resolution still biases too much in favor of those making the accusation against those accused and somewhat breaks the convention that the accused are assumed innocent until proven guilty.

In addition, I will look to shore up existing WA laws on wrongful claims in due course.
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
The reason for this is that the proposal is at exactly 5000 characters and it would break the character limit to include a longer preamble :P.
Click to expand...
I withdraw my criticism. Instead, I shall redirect my energy to praise of your precision at hitting exactly the character limit.
 
Simone:
Against. I commented and edited this fairly extensively (by my own standards at least) and I don't have anything further to add. My own comments are mostly gameside.

My main problem with this resolution is that if the whistleblower turns out to be wrong, and the agency also turns out to be wrong, there is no plausible way to seek compensation for the wrongful acts and for emotional distress. One issue I objected ferociously (over the use of the word "improper" was addressed) but this resolution still biases too much in favor of those making the accusation against those accused and somewhat breaks the convention that the accused are assumed innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...
People shouldn't be punished for telling an agency something that's wrong in good faith. If the agency doesn't investigate properly and wrongly punishes someone, that's really the agency's fault. It makes absolutely no sense to punish a whistleblower because an agency doesn't properly investigate.

I think the complaint about "innocent until proven guilty" is, frankly, FUD, and I hope voters see through it. "Innocent until proven guilty" has never meant that reporting something in good faith, even if it turns out to be wrong, is illegal.

For (non-WA).
 
Last edited:
For(NPA)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top